Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes again
but the entity name remains the same.
I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how clear the
numbers are to people not familiar with what they mean. Also entities
starting with numbers will end up at the
At the end +1
Jacques
From: Scott Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes again
but the entity name remains the same.
I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how clear the
numbers are to people not familiar with what they
+1
On Nov 24, 2008, at 2:41 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
At the end +1
Jacques
From: Scott Gray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ah ok, so you're talking about when the pk changes and then changes
again
but the entity name remains the same.
I guess the idea sounds fine to me, my only concern would be how
I have a pretty big problem with this actually.
First: changes to pks should be pretty limited, and when done should
be carefully reviewed. These are a significant difficulty when
upgrading and should never be done lightly or without looking at other
alternatives.
Second: when we
I have a problem with it too.
Anyone who is trying to upgrade from a revision that has more than two
versions of the same table would need to do it incrementally anyway.
-Adrian
David E Jones wrote:
I have a pretty big problem with this actually.
First: changes to pks should be pretty
this is exactly what this proposal solves because both instances will
still be there with different version numbers...
never minddo not have the time to pursue this.
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 09:54 -0800, Adrian Crum wrote:
I have a problem with it too.
Anyone who is trying to upgrade from
I have added a proposal for change as a comment to the document at:
http://docs.ofbiz.org/display/OFBTECH/General+Entity+Overview
If there are no objections i will incorporate it in the text.
--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive prices
Hi Hans
I see a proposition there, but no reasons why. What problems are you having
with the way things are currently handled and how does this change address
those problems? I'm not objecting as such, I'd just like to understand why
we need to change.
Thanks
Scott
2008/11/24 Hans Bakker
if you have more than one change on the same entity old will not work
anymore..
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 20:22 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Hans
I see a proposition there, but no reasons why. What problems are you having
with the way things are currently handled and how does this change address
